G.R. No. L-9953. December 26, 1956

The Case.—In the Court of First  Instance of Iloilo there was  a  land  registration case (No. V-5,  G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 55804), covering  Lots 1 and 2 described in Plan Psu-38526 situated in the  sitio and  barrio of Dangola-an, municipality of  Anilao,  province of Iloilo.   In that case Alfredo Apurada and  the heirs of Benedicto  Apurada were the applicants and Pablo Arandilla, Santiago Arandilla and the  Directors of Lands, Forestry and Fisheries were the oppositors  (Annexes A, B and C).   After proper proceedings, the Court rendered decision (Annex D) wherein Lots 1 and 2 were decreed in favor of the applicants in  the  proportion mentioned  in the  decision, with the exception of the fishpond  area of  12  hectares comprised within Lot No. 1 which was adjudicated to the oppositors Santiago and Pablo Arandilla.  All the  parties appeal from said decision  (Annex D)  to  the Court  of  Appeals and later to this Superiority which affirmed the  decision with regard  to Lot No. 2 but  reversed it  in  so far as the whole Lot No. 1  that was declared public land  (Annex E, promulgated February 21, 1955).

In the early part of August, 1955, Agustin Abulocion learned that said Lot No. 1 was declared public land and filed with  the Department of  Agriculture  and  Natural Resources an application for either lease or fishpond permit of the area possessed by him that was included in said Lot No. 1 but he was informed by the Bureau of Fisheries that a portion of 10 hectares in said Lot No. 1 was covered by  a fishpond permit  issued on July 15,  1955,  in  the name of respondent Carlos Legislador (a priest).  Petitioner Agustin  Abulocion then requested the Bureau of Fisheries, through counsel, that an investigation be made by  said Bureau of the conflicting interests  existing in said portion of  10 hectares, for the purpose of cancelling the  fishpond  permit issued  to  Carlos Legislador.  The investigation was accordingly set for hearing by the District Fishery Officer of Iloilo  (Annex F), though by agreement of the parties it  had to be postponed to November 16, 1955  (Annex G).

It so happened, however, that on August 17,  1955, the Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo in representation of the Director of Fisheries filed with the respondent Court an ex-parte motion praying for a writ of possession directing the respondent Sheriff to place Rev. Fr. Legislador or his administrator Marcelino Montano in possession of the fishpond area covered  by Spl.  Use Permit (F-37-A.)  included in said Lot 1, Plan Psu-38526  (Annex H),  and respondent Judge Felixberto Imperial Reyes presiding the Court issued on  the same date the order applied  for  by the Fiscal (Annexes I and J), and pursuant to these orders, Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo Juan F. Carreon executed and served  on  August 18, 1955, the writ of possession on the petitioner  spouses  and his  father-in-law Custodio  Apil, who is one of the Apurada heirs, and on petitioner Fabio Burgos, the watcher of the  Abulocions, and on the  same date delivered the  possession of the fishpond  area to the representative  of  respondent Carlos  Legislador, named Marcelino  Montano, who issued the corresponding receipt therefor (Annexes  X and Y of the answer).

The  spouses  Abulocion claim that they have spent a considerable amount  of  money for the  construction of the fishpond included in the  aforesaid Lot  No. 1  and had been in possession thereof since 1944,  having acquired the same by cession  and purchase  of  the rights of the heirs of Benedicto Apurada and Alfredo Apurada, and,. consequently, they filed  an urgent  motion  with the  respondent Court, which was later amended  (Annexes K and L), requesting that the  order  for and the writ of possession issued be set aside, but said motion, as amended, was denied by  the Court on September 6, 1955, as well as the  motion  for reconsideration  (Annex  M)  filed  by said spouses.

In such state of  affairs,  respondent  Carlos  Legislador filed a  motion  for contempt dated September  7, 1955, which  the Court granted,  praying  that  petitioners  be cited to appear before it on September 17,  1955, to explain why they  should  not be  punished  for  contempt.   But inasmuch as the respondent  Court was  of the opinion that it  was premature to cite the petitioners for contempt before  the motions for reconsideration (Annex M) would have been acted upon, the hearing of the motion  was, postponed indefinitely.

On  November 4, 1955, petitioners motion for reconsideration (Annex N) was denied  (Annex  0)  and  petitioners  were cited to appear on November  12,  1955, ta answer the charge  of contempt  (Annex P).   But the hearing of the motion for contempt was again postponed by the  Court (Annex S)  at the request of the petitioners,. who announced their intention to file a petition for  certiorari  and prohibition with this Court.

Predicated on the  foregoing facts, petitioners  pray  Us to declare null and void  the order dated August  17,  1955 (Annex I) issued by the respondent Court  providing for the issuance of the writ  of possession  (Annex J) in land registration case No.  V-95, G.L.R.O.  Record No. 55804, and all orders issued by the respondent Court in connection therewith,  as  well as  all actuations of the respondent Provincial Sheriff in  relation to said writ of possession, specially the service of the writ which was issued without or in  excess of jurisdiction or  with grave abuse  of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction; and that pending final determination of the special civil action  of certiorari and prohibition, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued (as it  was issued by this Court upon the filing by petitioners of a bond in the sum of Pl,000) restraining the respondents from  molesting, interfering and  arresting the petitioners in their alleged peaceful possession of the land in question.

On  the other hand, respondent Carlos Legislador avers in his  answer to the petition that he has been in possession of the fishpond area under a permit from the Government since  1932; that when petitioner Agustin Abulocion took possession thereof sometime after March,  1950  (not in 19UU  as alleged  by him), it was already  well-improved by him (Legislador) and whatever expenses the petitioners incurred in it  must have  been only for ordinary repairs; that petitioner bulocion could not  have  acquired the fishpond area by  cession and purchase from the Apurada heirs because there is no document of  any such transaction and his predecessors in interest  had  been defeated  parties in said registration  case  wherein lot 1 comprising said area was declared public  land;  that  petitioner  Abulocion had not merely been informed about but was served with a  copy of the writ of possession in  question by Deputy Provincial Sheriff Jose P. Carreon  on August 18, 1955, through his father-in-law Custodio Apil,  also one  of the defeated Apurada  heirs; that Court order (Annex I) dated August 17, 1955, for the issuance of the writ of possession objected to was dictated at the instance of the Director of Fisheries  who, instead  of requesting that  said fishpond area be delivered to him, as representative of  the Government and actual administrator  thereof, so that he could later deliver the  same  to  respondent Carlos Legislador, merely asked that said fishpond area be delivered directly to respondent Carlos Legislador, the recognized and long standing government  permitee who  had been  unlawfully deprived of said fishpond area by  petitioner  Abulocion even before this Court  rendered  final  decision in said registration case; that before the  commencement of said land registration case, fishpond permit No. F-74-B covering the fishpond area in question was  issued on February 1, 192S, in favor of Vicente Apurada,  one of the Apurada heirs, applicants, but he  definitely  sold all  his rights and interests  thereto  on Janwiry 26,  1932, to  Frs.  Carlos Legislador and Tomas Paguntalan  (Annexes  C,  D and E of the answer)  and Fr.  Tomas Paguntalan in turn sold all his  rights and  interests  over  the  fishpond area  to Fr. Carlos  Legislador; that subsequently, Fr. Legislador applied for a fishpond permit over the area  from  the Division of Forest, Fauna  and Grazing, Bureau of Forestry, and said permit  which the latter issued to him has been renewed from year to year without  interruption until 1941 when the war between Japan and the United States commenced; that during  the  entire duration of the last war, respondent Legislador remained in possession of  the questioned area and a permit therefor was  renewed on November 10,  1945 (Annex F), as per Ordinary Fishpond Permit  (Renewal No.  F-37-A)  and again  renewed since 1946 until 1949  (Annexes F, G, H, I and J).

The Issues.—As may be seen from the foregoing narration of the  facts appearing on record,  the questions at issue submitted  to our consideration are reduced to the following propositions:

1. Whether  the order  (Annex I) for  the  issuance of the writ of possession  (Annex J)  to respondent Carlos Legislador is illegal or  not, the latter not being a party in the land registration case of Lot No. 1, Plan Psu-38526, nor a successor in interest of either the applicants or the oppositors.
2. Who of the parties, the petitioners or the respondent Carlos  Legislador, has  a  better right  to the enjoyment and possession of the fishpond area involved.in this case?
3. Considering  that the fishpond  area herein  involved is a public land which exclusively belongs to the Government, has the respondent Legislador, who is not the owner or successor in interest of  the owner of said  property, any right to file the contempt  charge?  And
4. Are  the petitioners herein liable  for contempt  of court for allegedly having violated the order  of the Court (Annex P) ?

Discussion of the controversy.—There can be no question that  Fr. Carlos  Legislador  was  the authorized  previous possessor of the fishpond area in litigation and that it was in March, 1950, when petitioner Agustin Abulocidn unlawfully deprived him of such  possession  on the claim that he had acquired that area by cession and purchase from the Apurada heirs who, later developments  showed, had no right over the same  which  was  declared public land,

In  Yuson et al. vs.  Diaz,  42 Phil. 22, 27, it  was held , that:

“By virtue of section 17 of the Land Registration Law, as amended by section 5  of Act No.  1108, the Court of Land Registration may, in cases falling within its jurisdiction, enforce its orders, judgments or decrees in the same  manner  as Courts of First Instance, and in this connection it may issue  writs of possession, ordering the governor  or  sheriff of any province or of the City of Manila to place  the petitioner in” possession of  the property included in the. decree  of the court rendered  in  his  favor”— Pasay Estate  Co. vs.. Del Bosario,  11 Phil. 391.

But petitioners contend that they were in possession of the fishpond area at  the time  the writ  of possession (Annex J) was issued and  as stated in the  same Yuson case supra:

“When other persons have subsequently entered the property, claiming the right of possession thereto,  the  owner of the registered land, or his  successors, cannot dispossess such persons by merely asking for a writ of possesion.  *  *  * In order to recover the ownership or possession of land possessed by a  third person, it is absolutely indispensable to resort to the proceedings established by law.  This court has repeatedly declared that it  is sufficient for a person to be in possession in order that he may be respected in the possession enjoyed by him of a real property, so long as no other claimant appears who has  and proves a better right (Dancel  and Mina va. Ventura, 24  Phil. 421).  He who believes himself entitled to deprive another of the possession of a thing, so long as the possessor refuses delivery, must request the assistance of the proper authority.  (Art. 441, Civil Code).  In other words, he who believes himself entitled to deprive another of the possession  of real  property must come to the courts of justice,  instituting, as the case may be, an action for  unlawful entry  or detainer under section  80 of  the Code  of Civil Procedure, or the revindicatory action authorized by article 348 of the (old)  Civil Code” (Yuson et al. vs.  Diaz, 42  Phil. 22, 27).

The doctrine cited  is  sound but  petitioner’s contention is untenable in  the case at bar.   The reasons are  obvious,  for it should be remembered that it was prior to the decision of this Court  declaring  Lot No. 1  a  public land, that petitioners  allegedly derived their pretended rights from  the Apurada heirs, the applicants in said registration case, and that  it was  also  before the  promulgation  of  Our  decision therein that petitioners claim to have taken possession of the fishpond area in controversy;  and that when Our said decision became final, petitioner Agustin Abulocion  tried to secure a lease or fishpond permit from the Government because his  rights of  ownership  and possession over  said land had been voided by the defeat of his predecessors  in interest in the registration case.  Now, as the  Government has the. right to deliver possession of said fishpond  area to who ever the Bureau of Fisheries would deem more qualified to receive the  same (and no  one had  a better right to possess that fishpond area  than Fr. Carlos Legislador who had been the grantee thereof for many successive and continued years), We do not see any reason why the Government could not ask the Court for a writ of possession after having won  that registration case and after said area was declared a public  land.   Nor We  find  any  illegality in the  petition filed by  the  Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo,  in representation of the Bureau of Fisheries, requesting  that Fr.  Legislador  be placed in possession thereof instead of the Bureau of Fisheries that administered the same for  the Government of  the Philippines. This Court has already held that:

“A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who would be defeated in a registration case, but also  against any one  adversely  occupying the  land  or  any portion  thereof during the  land registration proceedings” (Pasay Estate  Co. vs..  De la Rosa, 11 Phil. 391; Manlapas  et  al.  vs.. Lorente,  48 Phil.  298). The  issuance of a decree is a part of  the registration  proceedings. In fact  it is supposed to end the said proceedings.  Consequently, any  person unlawfully  and adversely  occupying said  lot at  any time  up  to the issuance of the final  decree, may  be subject to judicial  ejectment by means of  a writ of possession and it  is the duty  of the  registration  court to  issue said writ when asked for by the successful  claimant” (Demorar vs.. Ibanez et al., 97  Phil., 72; 51 Off. Gaz. [6] p. 2872).

Also in the  case of  Romansanta et  al. vs..  Servillano Platon, 34 Off. Gaz., No. 76, number of June 25,1936, it was held  that “in a registration  case the judgment confirming the  title of the  applicant and ordering its registration in his name necessarily carried with it  the delivery of possession which is an inherent element of the right of ownership. The issuance of the writ of possession is, therefore,  sanctioned  by existing laws in  this jurisdiction  and  by  the generally accepted principles upon which the administration of justice rests”.

On the strength of the doctrines  of  this  Court aforequoted,  We do  not find any reason to void the orders (Annexes  I  and J)  nor the actuations of  the respondent Sheriff in connection therewith.  It is true that respondent Carlos  Legislador  is not a party  in  the registration case nor  a successor in interest of the winning party therein, the  Republic of the Philippines, but he is just the  same entitled to the possession of the fishpond area in question because it was given to him  by virtue of the permit issued to him  by the Director  of Fisheries who  was a party in that case and had the administration of fishponds  comprised within public lands.   Consequently, We hold that the lower court can legally proceed with the hearing and determination of  the motion  for contempt  filed  by  respondent Legislador.

Wherefore,  the petition  for certiorari and prohibition applied for by petitioners is hereby dismissed and the writ of preliminary injunction lifted, with costs against petitioners.  It is so ordered.

Paras,  C.  J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,  J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.